As long as you trust the people, you can do it with an A380.
That is, if you can somehow argue the A380 is a non-complex aircraft, right?
I was referring to the fact that whether you share the costs or whether not is not transparent. Usually you do not put a cash register in front of your aircraft and a price list. If I fly with close friends and they give me money, I do not care whether that is allowed or not. If I take money from somebody who is not a close friend, then I might care about the legality of that.
what exactly is “direct cost”?
It’s the cost directly related to the flight – that is, aircraft rental (if not owned by the pilot), fuel, oil, landing fees, etc., as opposed to hangarage, maintenance fund, club or syndicate membership fees and other fixed and quasi-fixed costs. I think UK CAA had a publication explaining it.
That is, if you can somehow argue the A380 is a non-complex aircraft, right?
And I always thought an A380 was a computer surrounded by a rather large heat sink……
It’s limited to aircraft with 6 seats. Yes, random but rather generous. The goal is to draw a line between private cost sharing and commercial air transport.
I don’t see it like that. This is nothing but a very sneaky restriction for the PPL. With a PPL the MTOW is 5700 kg and 19? passengers. It does not draw a line, it just decreases the limit for when a commercial transport is “needed” where it wouldn’t be needed before.
Besides, the wordings makes the whole regulation extremely fuzzy (I have read it in several languages). Only at first glance does it seem clear. It does not state max 6 seats, or max 6 occupants. It only states that it has to be shared by “private individuals”. It states that the cost has to be shared by all “occupants” including the pilot. Then it states that the number of “persons” sharing the costs is limited to max 6. It may not be obvious, but it does not state that one of the “occupants” or one of the “persons” cannot pay for another occupant or person. The only clear thing here is “private individuals” and “including the pilot”. The clue to see the fuzziness is that sharing the cost is not the same as paying the share. Let’s say I want to have an extravagant little party that includes travelling with a Cessna Caravan. The caravan is owned by a private individual and he is also the pilot with a PPL. Only the pilot and I pay the share (two persons sharing the cost), but the direct cost is still shared by some 12 “occupants”, including the pilot. This should be well within the letter of the regulation.
I guess Norway is special because it is not a EU member so EU law does not directly apply. Norway would have to convert it into local law which it will probably do.
The only difference I have seen is that we get these EASA rules 2-5 years later than everybody else, and in the mean time we have some interim regulations where both (local and EASA) sort of applies, but not really, and no one knows exactly how. Then when finally adopted, some new EASA regulation is already in the works, and it all starts over again. So, we are in a permanent state of lawlessness, which probably is just as good, this leaves room for some common sense at least 
With a PPL the MTOW is 5700 kg and 19? passengers
No, it’s not. You can fly an A380 on a PPL. In principle. (You’ll of course also need IR, a type rating, multi-crew training etc, but you don’t technically need a CPL.)
Besides, the wordings makes the whole regulation extremely fuzzy (I have read it in several languages).
I’ve noticed lots of differences between the English and Swedish versions of various EASA regs. Some rather important. I’m sure you can find the same discrepancies between other language versions as well.
I asked the Swedish CAA about this and they said they consider the English version authoritative! That is clearly not correct according to the EU treaties. If there was to be a dispute with the CAA and the matter went to court (in Sweden), then the Swedish version of the regs would be used for sure. If the case went all the way to the European Court, then god knows what would happen.
Usually you do not put a cash register in front of your aircraft and a price list
Quite. I don’t share costs with somebody flying in my plane. Most of my passengers have their own planes and so the routine is to reciprocate on another day. On the rare occasion I fly with somebody where that wouldn’t apply I’m just happy they came along!
On the rare occasion I fly with somebody where that wouldn’t apply I’m just happy they came along!
Some people are less fortunate and have difficulties affording their hobby. I used to rent out an aircraft and I had lots of these people. One guy (over 70) would drive buses to earn the money to afford 5 traffic patterns in my C172. For these people, cost sharing with passengers is often the only way to do more than occasional local flights.
I think it’s good to take people flying for free and take money out of the equation, including people who couldn’t afford it otherwise.
One of the neat things about trading flights is that each controls his costs by the plane he flies. An hour in a $15K Taylorcraft that burns 4.5 gph is worth just as much on trade between pilots as an hour in a twin. And if you don’t have a plane, just come along and save your money. I’m happy to fly right seat in my plane on occasion.
Along those lines, both my planes combined are worth less than some people’s cars – I control my costs so I don’t have to use my time understanding them with any great precision. Aviation & regulatory theatre is a waste of time.
